If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I see Gordon's coming around to the the conservative school of thought that responsibility ultimately rests with individual agency, with the intersectional group identity as a secondary consideration.

Welcome to the team, buddy

and cue the "conservative" logical fallacy.

its not a leap of political or even philosophical value to understand the mathematical fact that a distribution of outcomes means there is a A DISTRIBUTION OF OUTCOMES. its in the definition. and that means that the fundamental natural phenomena you are observing you are doing so not understanding the underlying first principles at work.

first principles claim: you cannot or shouldnt rear children while in multiple sexual relationships with adults

evidence: in a slight majority of cases that we found documentation on, step parents have a harder time connecting with there step children

claim is not actually supported by presented evidence, claim is rejected.

Last edited by cockerpunk; 03-07-2019 at 11:34 AM.

social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Preface: I don't actually are about this conversation because I think we can all agree there are plenty of fit and unfit parents out there from all walks of life.

claim is not actually supported by presented evidence, claim is rejected.

This might get back to a conversation we had years ago, but you can't reject the claim, you can only say it is not supported by the available evidence. There is no available evidence to either support or contradict the claim.

Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted

I work for the company building the Paragon...once we figure out a name

Preface: I don't actually are about this conversation because I think we can all agree there are plenty of fit and unfit parents out there from all walks of life.

This might get back to a conversation we had years ago, but you can't reject the claim, you can only say it is not supported by the available evidence. There is no available evidence to either support or contradict the claim.

not to put too fine a point on it, but .... null hypothesis.

if evidence does not reach significance (for whatever reason) the null hypothesis is selected.

anyway, politics .... how many more receipts did cohen bring? junior and wiessleberg indicted yet?

social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

And I think it may just be a shorthand issue - that the evidence is rejected by Gordon, so therefore there is no available evidence. But responding to you feels too much like responding to Gordon on my Devil's take, so let's change directions!

In a shock to the moderate population of this forum, Sherrod Brown has decided he is not running for President in 2020. I drank all of the eggnog in my house to console my heart. There's still about a billion possible Democratic presidential candidates, but has anyone else started to get the sense yet that the rest of the field needs to slam Bernie hard? Every time we lose a not-Bernie candidate, the chances of Bernie becoming the winner increase. Elizabeth Warren has really tripped all over herself, which means there doesn't seem to be much of anyone left that is splitting the left-populist vote.

if evidence does not reach significance (for whatever reason) the null hypothesis is selected.

Not to put too fine a point on it but I see you still suck at stats. If you're doing statistical analysis you can either reject the null hypothesis, or fail to reject the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is never "selected" by a failure to reject.

Otherwise you could make the null hypothesis that it never rains on Earth, look around while standing at the bottom of a mineshaft and say '"yep, I was right". Which is kind of what you're doing right now.

Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted

I work for the company building the Paragon...once we figure out a name

Not to put too fine a point on it but I see you still suck at stats. If you're doing statistical analysis you can either reject the null hypothesis, or fail to reject the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is never "selected" by a failure to reject.

Otherwise you could make the null hypothesis that it never rains on Earth, look around while standing at the bottom of a mineshaft and say '"yep, I was right". Which is kind of what you're doing right now.

yawn, pedantry is boring.

evidence has not been presented to conclude there is an issue, so we conclude there is not one. whatever verb you want to use to say that doesn't fucking matter and you know it.

social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.